Egypt's divided revolutionaries

The situation is complicated by the lack of a constitution defining the role of the new president.

Egypt’s revolutionaries have sustained two major setbacks over the past two weeks. The first came when hold-overs from the ‘old order’ won the initial round of the presidential election. Muhammad Mursi is from the Muslim Brotherhood and Ahmad Shafiq, former prime minister and force commander, is the man of the military establishment which has ruled Egypt since 1952. Commentators contend that Egyptian voters will have to choose between ‘theocracy’ and ‘dictatorship’ when they return to the polls on June 16-17.

The Brotherhood is a religious, social and cultural movement which has been tolerated, courted and persecuted by governments since its founding in 1928. Although chapters have been closed and members jailed, the Brotherhood has always managed to operate clinics, schools, and welfare and religious outreach programmes built on a grass root organisation.

Powerful institution

The military is the most powerful institution in Egypt, commanding a million men, running lucrative defence industries and commercial enterprises and managing vast properties. The military is also closely linked to the former ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) which retains its political networks. Therefore, the run-off will pit the organisation of the Brotherhood against the machine that kept ousted president Hosni Mubarak in power for 30 years.

Second, Mubarak was sentenced to life imprisonment for ‘failing to prevent’ the killing of 846 protesters rather than for ordering the fatal crackdown. Egyptians who instantly cheered the sentence as it was read out by the Cairo court’s chief judge Ahmad Rifaat were quickly dismayed by the ruling itself. Their dismay turned to fury when Mubarak, his sons Alaa and Gamal and their cronies were acquitted of corruption.

Amnesty International observed that the court had ‘failed to deliver full justice’ and to end a culture of impunity for former officials who committed crimes and human rights abuses. Egypt’s prosecutor promptly initiated appeals against the verdicts but the outcome of appeals is uncertain because the country’s highest court belongs to a judiciary manipulated for decades by Mubarak’s government. His lawyers are also appealing the verdict.

Although human rights activist Hossam Bahgat predicted that a retrial with different results is likely, Amir Salem, a lawyer representing families of those killed during the uprising condemned the court.

The original verdict discredits the military-led transitional regime and the judiciary that conducted the first ever trial for capital crimes and corruption of an Arab leader ousted by people’s power and undermines the drive by Egyptians to move from authoritarian rule to democracy.

Tens of thousands of Egyptians demonstrated their displeasure by storming into Cairo’s iconic Tahrir Square, the cradle of the 18-day uprising, and the streets and squares of Alexandria, Suez and other cities. Protesters expressed dissatisfaction with both presidential candidates but some liberals argue that voters should opt for Mursi in order to prevent the Mubarak regime from making a comeback. Others insist that boycott is the only intelligent option. Depriving the new president of popular backing would make him weak and unable to carry out his agenda.

Advocates of abstention hold that Mursi would not be strong enough to impose the Brotherhood’s programme of ‘Islamisation,’ including the introduction of Muslim canon law, Sharia, as the law of the land, and that Shafiq would not be in a position to reverse the political gains of the uprising, carry out a counter-revolution, and crush dissent.

The post-election situation is complicated by the lack of a new constitution defining the powers and role of the new president. Consequently, Egypt’s new president will reign in accordance with the old Mubarak constitution which concentrated power in the executive.  Egyptians are still bickering over the composition of the constitutional commission so it may be many months before the new document is in place.

Egypt’s political confusion and popular consternation bodes ill for the Arab Spring which was meant to herald a new era for the countries of West Asia. The contest for Egypt’s presidency between two representatives of the ‘old regime’ in an era of multi-candidate elections reveals that revolutions can have uncertain outcomes and democracy can disappoint.

Egypt's divided revolutionaries simply do not know how to tackle the challenge the country is facing. They have no leader and no leadership capable of transforming the uprising that electrified the world into a revolution that could rid Egypt of its ‘old regime.’